Abinash Sharma
Facing The Ugly: The Case of Frankenstien
“That the Creature is ready to gorge on that meaning we may infer from his desperate plea, “Child, what is the meaning of this?” (Gigante 569). As we look at the very meaning of what is ugly, a quick departure point would be the understanding that the binary of ugly would be beautiful and for one who has not been exposed to such a binary definition, as the Creature, it is interesting to note that the truth behind what is ugly and what is aesthetically beautiful is subjective and relative.
Gigante continues to point this out in her discussion of ugly in relation to deformity. “Yet as his creator seems to know better than himself, deformity is a distinct category not to be confused (literally fused together) with the ugly” (Gigante 74). This is interesting in that the creature believes he is deformed but he is actually in proportion, physically speaking, to his own size. Here, as she may or may note make note of it, the creature deigns to imagine a definition of ugly and in doing so, mistakes one definition with another, thus showing the relativity of these definitions. The fact that creature, before he is turned into a murdering monster, actually has a heart that leads him to help others (the inhabiants in the cabin) yet he uses his mind to search for relative definitions and adds to this subjectivity.
As she continues grounding “ugly” in a historical time period, she uses Burke to explain the notion that the creature is actually very “fit”. He is able to traverse great distances in small amounts of time. She makes this point as one of three points using Burke’s notion of what constitutes ugly and how the creature may or may not fit these definitions. Of note here, is the paragraphs on the sublime (575). Here, she flips the notion of who actually is ugly in the book, in that, if one speaks about the realm of what is “ugly” in a more mental or emotionally point of view, is Victor then not more “emotionally ugly” as he is constantly trapped in “emotional torture” . . . I believe this point, about being in emotional torture, is made throughout the book, both through the character of Victor and the “ugly” relationship between Victor, man and theology.
Other interesting things of note, though I wish I had more time to ponder over their meanings, is Gigante’s idea that The Creature takes over the text (583) and that The Creature becomes Frankenstein (583). The later is easily proven but the former statement, that The Creature takes over the text seems to be a veiled reference to the notion that the creature was always with in Frankenstein and thus was always with in the book even before his creation. An obvious reference to the debate over nurture and nature. However, at another level – that the creature and the text become one. Again, I find this interesting but I would need more time to ponder over such a thought. Does she say here that the author and text are one in that what is natural law will always come out at the end of any text, that they are one and the same.
Lastly, her use of Derrida may add to this point; “The distinguishing X cannot even announce itself as a sensible object without immediately being caught up in a teleological hierarchy. It is therefore in-sensible and un-intelligible, irrepresentable and unnamable, the absolute other of the system” (583). Gigante here (though again more time is needed to analyze how this is “presented” in the article) almost appears to be saying that Shelly not only was happy that the creature was unnamed in the theatrical productions of Frankenstein but that there is no other way of looking at “ugly” – that it always has to remain un-named in the system – to name it – would put “it” back into the system Derrida refers to and that the “The Creation “ has to remain an “it”. Something unnamed.
In closing, this was very dense material and after just recently finishing the book, it would take more time to digest these thoughts. An exploration of the system of thought that lead to definitions in non objective systems, such as the one that which leads to definitions, in a system that chooses to be objective but cannot, can always lead one to question the objectivity of words like ugly and monster. How do we define things objectively when they are already part of us? To try to put them at one end of a spectrum when they are always part of a whole that cannot be separated, seems to be an idealistic fantasy.
Facing The Ugly: The Case of Frankenstien
“That the Creature is ready to gorge on that meaning we may infer from his desperate plea, “Child, what is the meaning of this?” (Gigante 569). As we look at the very meaning of what is ugly, a quick departure point would be the understanding that the binary of ugly would be beautiful and for one who has not been exposed to such a binary definition, as the Creature, it is interesting to note that the truth behind what is ugly and what is aesthetically beautiful is subjective and relative.
Gigante continues to point this out in her discussion of ugly in relation to deformity. “Yet as his creator seems to know better than himself, deformity is a distinct category not to be confused (literally fused together) with the ugly” (Gigante 74). This is interesting in that the creature believes he is deformed but he is actually in proportion, physically speaking, to his own size. Here, as she may or may note make note of it, the creature deigns to imagine a definition of ugly and in doing so, mistakes one definition with another, thus showing the relativity of these definitions. The fact that creature, before he is turned into a murdering monster, actually has a heart that leads him to help others (the inhabiants in the cabin) yet he uses his mind to search for relative definitions and adds to this subjectivity.
As she continues grounding “ugly” in a historical time period, she uses Burke to explain the notion that the creature is actually very “fit”. He is able to traverse great distances in small amounts of time. She makes this point as one of three points using Burke’s notion of what constitutes ugly and how the creature may or may not fit these definitions. Of note here, is the paragraphs on the sublime (575). Here, she flips the notion of who actually is ugly in the book, in that, if one speaks about the realm of what is “ugly” in a more mental or emotionally point of view, is Victor then not more “emotionally ugly” as he is constantly trapped in “emotional torture” . . . I believe this point, about being in emotional torture, is made throughout the book, both through the character of Victor and the “ugly” relationship between Victor, man and theology.
Other interesting things of note, though I wish I had more time to ponder over their meanings, is Gigante’s idea that The Creature takes over the text (583) and that The Creature becomes Frankenstein (583). The later is easily proven but the former statement, that The Creature takes over the text seems to be a veiled reference to the notion that the creature was always with in Frankenstein and thus was always with in the book even before his creation. An obvious reference to the debate over nurture and nature. However, at another level – that the creature and the text become one. Again, I find this interesting but I would need more time to ponder over such a thought. Does she say here that the author and text are one in that what is natural law will always come out at the end of any text, that they are one and the same.
Lastly, her use of Derrida may add to this point; “The distinguishing X cannot even announce itself as a sensible object without immediately being caught up in a teleological hierarchy. It is therefore in-sensible and un-intelligible, irrepresentable and unnamable, the absolute other of the system” (583). Gigante here (though again more time is needed to analyze how this is “presented” in the article) almost appears to be saying that Shelly not only was happy that the creature was unnamed in the theatrical productions of Frankenstein but that there is no other way of looking at “ugly” – that it always has to remain un-named in the system – to name it – would put “it” back into the system Derrida refers to and that the “The Creation “ has to remain an “it”. Something unnamed.
In closing, this was very dense material and after just recently finishing the book, it would take more time to digest these thoughts. An exploration of the system of thought that lead to definitions in non objective systems, such as the one that which leads to definitions, in a system that chooses to be objective but cannot, can always lead one to question the objectivity of words like ugly and monster. How do we define things objectively when they are already part of us? To try to put them at one end of a spectrum when they are always part of a whole that cannot be separated, seems to be an idealistic fantasy.